Lemelson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1498 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · Tisdale v. United States · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Adams v. Texas · Autogiro Co. of America v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Surface measuring apparatus comprising: (1) means for sensing a surface to be measured; (2) manipulation means for said sensing means; (3) a variable program control means for controlling the operation of said manipulation means and positioning said sensing means adjacent a surface to be measured, said program control means including: (a) a record member; and (b) means for reproducing positional control signals from said record member; (4) means for using said positional control signals to preposition said sensing means; (5) means for relatively positioning said workpiece and said manipulation means; (6) signal generating means associated with said manipulation means and said sensing means for obtaining signals representative of the location of a surface of said workpiece relative to said manipulation means; and (7) recording means for recording said signals representative of the surface being measured on predetermined areas of said recording member.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A method of automatically measuring dimensions between surfaces of a workpiece comprising the steps of: (1) relatively prepositioning a workpiece and an automatic measurement device; (2) detecting a first surface of said workpiece by means of surface positional indicating means; (3) thereafter relatively moving said surface positional indicating means and said workpiece and automatically generating signals indicative of the degree of said movement; (4) detecting a second surface of said workpiece with said surface position indicating means when said second surface is aligned therewith; (5) integrating the signals generated during the movement of said workpiece and said surface detecting means between said first and second surfaces; and (6) generating a further signal indicative of the distance between said first and second surfaces.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]t is incumbent upon plaintiff to adduce evidence that the Government actually used the accused devices in an infringing manner, or practiced the precise methods claimed. Merely proffering evidence that the measuring devices procured by the Government might be operatively assembled in an infringing mode, or that the machines are capable of executing the claimed methods, does not prove infringement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.